Being Competitive Part 3: Confidence - Page 3

On November 18 2010 17:15 rei wrote:
"I'm not much for meaningless theoretical discussion"
It is meaningless for you, but not for me, When i see gravity in action, want to know how it works and why it works the way it does. Newton figured out how gravity works, Einstein tried to figure out why it works the way it does till his dying breath.

I'm trying to learn, nothing more nothing less, for me to learn I need to ask questions. you show us your experience as examples in how confidence worked for you, and suggest how others can build their confidence with your suggestions. I'm merely trying to figure out why it worked.

And before I can ask why, i first need to have a more clear definition of what is confidence, I might have missed it, but I can't seem to find a clear definition on what confidence is on your OP, you gave many examples of what is confidence and what is not confidence, how to get it, and how to work toward it.

I try to give a definition of what is confident and what is not confident base on my understand in my first reply, the question mark at the end of those 2 sentence is aim to ask if you agree. Since you want to talk about this as an application of confidence, then let me re-phase how i would define confidence.

Positive example: I am confident that I will be able to solve the math problem 1+1, the evidence for this prediction is the fact that 1) I have experience with the mathematical operation "addition" tens of thousands of times, and 2) I have the calculator technology on my finger tips to double check and ensure I will arrive in the correct solution. These evidence is why i'm confident.

Negative example: I am confident that I will be able to beat rekrul on starcraft2 1vs1, the evidence for this prediction is that fact that I have reach over 2000 on NA ladder, and have over 1000 sc2 game in my b.net account.

Does this mean being confident comes down to how well researched a subject in question is? The more we know about a given event, the better we will be able to predict the outcome of some event?
On the Negative example I have no information on how good rekrul is, my prediction on beating rekrul is not supported by facts. On the positive example I have benefits of my experience in preforming the same task and a back up plan with a calculator to ensure the outcome of the event.

Another way to look at these 2 example, in the positive example the predictor of the event is in full control of the procedure of the event. Where the negative example, the predictor does not control how well rekrul can play sc2, hence insufficient evidence to support his prediction. And the prediction would change depend on what rekrul's skill is in sc2.

Confidence is result of these factual evidences, the more evidence we have, the higher the confidences, that's why i said confidence is not real, we label it with this concept, we don't measure confidences, we measure factual evidences to predict an outcome.